In the majority opinion (PDF), the court notes that it rejected The Denver Post’s efforts to obtain Ritter’s cellphone records purely based on a reading of the law, “whether or not disclosure of the Governor’s personal cell phone bills might be desirable as a matter of public policy.” Ritter used a personal cellphone to make many of his official calls, saving the taxpayers money but also thwarting public scrutiny of records that would detail with whom he spoke about state business.

Ritter refused to release the records, which caused The Post to sue for them. But the court said The Post’s legal argument that the records should be public didn’t pass muster under the current law’s definition of public records. Then the majority concluded: “Should the General Assembly decide to expand the applicability of (the Colorado Open Records Act), it is free to do so.”

So, will it?

The response from state lawmakers Tuesday was tepid but not dismissive.

House Judiciary Committee chair Rep. Bob Gardner, R-Colorado Springs, didn’t immediately return a call for comment. A spokesman for House Speaker Frank McNulty, R-Highlands Ranch, noted that McNulty was out of town, and the spokesman said he was trying to track McNulty down. By the end of the day, no response to the question materialized, though the spokesman did put out a statement from McNulty on another matter.

No lawmakers, normally not a shy bunch when they have something to say, put out statements pledging changes.

But two Senate Democrats, when asked the question, said they would take a closer look at the issue. Senate President Brandon Shaffer, D-Longmont, said lawmakers haven’t had much of a chance to digest the ruling and haven’t discussed whether to do anything about it.

“There may be some openness to looking at things we can do to the open records law,” Shaffer said in a voicemail, “but I don’t have anything specific at this time.”

Sen. Morgan Carroll, an Aurora Democrat who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, said she needed to closely read the court’s decision to see if it reveals a public-records loophole that should be closed.

Given that the next legislative session is seven months off, it could be awhile before we learn what the answer is.

If someone is under that much suspension for using there private phone they need to get a court ordered wire tap. These people need to have some personal life aside from public scrutiny even if they do some state business on a personal phone. Most of us do business from a home or private home. Lets get a grip.

Srebel

it’s suspicion…let them have their private cells, and if they get caught making back room deals, fine them 20 grand minimum and go from there. hit them in the wallet where it hurts their egos.